What did the Shaykh of Islam mean by the eternalness of the type, and that there is no first created thing?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : What is he claiming against Ibn Taymiyyah?
Al-Halabi : That he holds to the eternalness of the type, meaning he interprets this statement...
The Shaykh : What is understood from the eternalness of the type?
Al-Halabi : That this universe is preceded by a universe before it, and this universe is preceded by a universe before it, to an end of universes that has no limit.
The Shaykh : So what is the objection he has against Ibn Taymiyyah?
Al-Halabi : That this statement leads to an eternal thing alongside Allah.
The Shaykh : Is not this statement that he is quoting the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah?
Al-Halabi : That...?
The Shaykh : There is no created thing except that before it is a created thing.
Al-Halabi : It is, of course, the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : So what is this man's argument against Ibn Taymiyyah? Does Ibn Taymiyyah say that there is an eternal created thing alongside Allah?
Al-Halabi : No, he does not say this, but he combined two statements and reached this conclusion from which he derived this statement.
The Shaykh : So is the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah the subject of the derivation?
Al-Halabi : Of course.
The Shaykh : How, of course?
Al-Halabi : Of course, for him, not for us. All his statements are derivations by our Shaykh; he did not bring explicit texts.
Wafi: He means that the Shaykh of Ibn Taymiyyah says that the type of created things is eternal, which is what he says, but he was not able to bring an explicit text for this statement; rather, there are texts from which this statement may be understood.
The Shaykh : If we combine the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah, it turns out that he does not say the type is eternal; but he says that there is no first created thing; but he says: There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence. So have you seen this from his statements?
Wafi: A lot.
The Shaykh : So what is this opponent's position toward this statement?
The questioner : Evasion...
The Shaykh : So what is the benefit of the discussion? Since the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah is explicit that there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence; but the truth is that Ibn Taymiyyah entered a subject that is almost like philosophy; the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah are divided into two parts, as I understand:
A part that follows the Shari'ah within the limits of our understanding; a part that follows philosophy that is not comprehensible. The one that follows the Shari'ah is that there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and any created thing is preceded by non-existence; so at that time, the matter differs from the Divine Essence in every way. So if this opponent of yours insists on what? If he wants to insist on the eternalness of the type of Ibn Taymiyyah, explain what is meant by the eternalness of the type: that there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and before it a created thing, and so on to what has no beginning. This is a statement that is not understood, of course; logically it is not understood; but this does not make him a disbeliever because he explicitly states that there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence; so from here, the created differs from the Creator in Ibn Taymiyyah's view completely, and this is a very self-evident matter regarding the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah; so the issue does not need all this argumentation if the man wants to be fair; but if he wants to argue with falsehood, then this has no end; Ibn Taymiyyah says there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence, but he tells you it has no beginning, there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing.
The questioner : How do we combine this statement, our Shaykh, with his statement that the first of the created things is the Throne?
The Shaykh : From whom?
The questioner : The Shaykh of Islam.
The Shaykh : No, Ibn Taymiyyah does not say the first created thing is the Throne; he is telling a story, and this is how we refute his statement with this statement; Ibn Taymiyyah narrates the disagreement of the scholars regarding the first created thing, some of them say the Throne, and some of them say the Pen; but he does not say there is a first created thing, and from here came his problem.
Wafi: But my teacher, his preference, our Shaykh, is an explicit preference; he says: And this is what the majority of the Salaf are upon.
The Shaykh : Correct; but when he comes to tell you: There is no created thing except that it is preceded by a created thing.
Al-Halabi : We are here, the only problem now that we have.
The Shaykh : No, my brother, this is not a problem; you hold onto his word: "There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence." I commented on, I think...; the important thing is, I commented and said this contradicts the statement that there is no first created thing.
Al-Halabi : They used this statement as evidence against us on the day of the session, they said evenThe Shaykh : They understood our understanding in the case of...
The questioner : They said evenThe Shaykh : Nasser in al-Silsilah al-Sahihah understood differently from your understanding, Shaykh Ali, in this research.
The Shaykh : What is your understanding that they are accusing you of?
Al-Halabi : We did not raise the issue that there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing at that time; we raised the issue of the eternalness of the type.
The Shaykh : We are not concerned with what happened between you and him; we are concerned with seeing where the disagreement is between you and this man.
Wafi: Our Shaykh, I want to say something; you know your precision in research.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
Wafi: Therefore, I arranged the research in this order... First: we wanted to read some texts, but praise be to Allah, they are known to you; the second thing: what is the meaning of the eternalness of the type in the understanding ofThe Shaykh : Nasser al-Din al-Albani (may Allah preserve him).
The Shaykh : laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him), my brother, did you find this expression in the Qur'an?
Wafi: No.
The Shaykh : So why are you putting yourselves in a dilemma, and then trying to get out of it? The eternalness of the type is a term of Ibn Taymiyyah, do you understand how? Meaning, what we mentioned earlier: "There is no created thing except that before it is a created thing" and so on to what has no beginning.
Wafi: Okay, we now have an understanding of the issue of the eternalness of the type.
The Shaykh : Please, go ahead.
Wafi: We have an observation regarding the texts of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him); in more than one place, whether in al-Dar' or al-Minhaj or al-Fatawa, we found that he — the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) — links his statement regarding the type to the will and the desire, so we understood that the intention of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) by the eternalness of the type is linking the action to the will and power of Allah (Exalted and Majestic is He), not that there is, meaning, something created alongside Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) that is ancient with the ancientness of Allah; rather, the eternalness of the type means that our Lord (Exalted and Majestic is He) is characterized by the eternal, ancient will and power.
The Shaykh : Allow me, within the limits of this understanding that you understood, is there a disagreement between Ibn Taymiyyah and others?
Wafi: A disagreement between Ibn Taymiyyah and others? I do not think so.
The Shaykh : So?
Wafi: Meaning, is this interpretation from us, our understanding of the eternalness of the type with the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, that in terms of the connection of creation to the will and desire; so when he uses this expression, he means by it the ancient will and desire with the ancientness of Allah, if the expression is correct.
Al-Halabi : Because they are among His attributes, if the expression is correct.
The Shaykh : No, this returned you to the attribute of Allah, while the research is in the effect of the attribute of Allah; Allah is characterized by the attribute of the Creator; and the research is in the effect of the attribute of Allah, which is creation and the created.
Wafi: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and this statement that you are saying, one of our arguments against Ibn Taymiyyah is that Allah creates whenever He wills, and he says that if we say the first created thing, it means — I am telling you philosophical words that it was not fitting for Ibn Taymiyyah to delve into this depth — if we say this is the first created thing, it means we have defined the firstness of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); because when you say the first created thing, how many millions of millions of uncountable and unnumberable years have passed for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) while He is not actually characterized by the attribute of creation. And this is what you understand?
Wafi: This is what the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah rejects in our understanding.
The Shaykh : Allow me, do you want to learn patience — he laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) — how, meaning, what is understood from the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah? Wafi: Meaning, please, let me read to you this misleading expression...
The Shaykh : Please, but I understood from what I am saying that you say this is what we understood from Ibn Taymiyyah; Ibn Taymiyyah says — this remains in my mind from long ago —: that there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and so on to what has no beginning; and that if we say here the beginning, it means the eternalness of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is defined.
Wafi: Yes.
The Shaykh : How do you say?
Wafi: This is what the Shaykh of Islam says.
The Shaykh : All right, so how do you interpret his words?
Wafiq: I interpret his words with this statement: that when Ibn Taymiyyah intends the meaning of the beginning of the First, it is the attributes of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), namely will and desire.
Al-Halabi : From which the created things emanate.
The Shaykh : No, no, my brother, while you are searching in the created, you find yourself returning to the attribute of the Creator.
Al-Halabi : He has a connection, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, between these two issues in many places, O our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No, there is no connection, so does that mean there was no time, even for moments, when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) did not create anything?
Al-Halabi : No, O our Shaykh, this statement, let us suppose it is correct, and indeed it is correct, but Shaykh al-Islam holds that the actor from whom the action issues does not necessitate that the action be equal to the actor; rather, every action is later than the actor. This refutes the claim that it will come with its effect.
Wafiq: O Shaykh Ali, if you allow me, I will read the phrase onThe Shaykh : , this one we are approximately discussing, he says in the explanation of the hadith of 'Umar: "... So the effect means the absence of a beginning; the Eternal is not a limited thing, so our saying 'He has always been Able' is like saying 'He is always Able,' and His being Able is a permanent attribute with no beginning, so likewise if it is said..."
The Shaykh : Here he is speaking about the attribute subsisting in His Essence.
Wafiq: In the Essence of Allah, yes: "So likewise if it is said: 'He has always been a Speaker when He wills, and He has always been doing what He wills,' this necessitates the permanence of His being a Speaker and an Actor by His will and power. And if the one who thinks thinks that this necessitates the existence of something ancient with Him, that is a corruption of his conception. For if He is the Creator of all things, and everything other than Him is a created thing preceded by non-existence, then there is nothing ancient with Him in His antiquity. And if it is said: 'He has always been creating,' it means He has always been creating a created thing after a created thing, just as He will not cease in eternity from creating a created thing after a created thing. We deny what we deny of occurrences and movements, one thing after another, and there is in that only His description with the permanence of action, not that there is with Him an acted-upon thing from the acted-upon things specifically."
The Shaykh : All right, how is this, what do you understand from this?
Wafiq: We understand from this, O our Shaykh, that the original attribute related to Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), will and desire, and also the attribute of creation and the attribute of the Creator, the Maker, and so on, is an eternal attribute with Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) that He deserves...
The Shaykh : There is no disagreement, and this is not the subject of our research.
Wafiq: Yes, perhaps if I complete it, the place will come. He deserves it, (Glorified and Exalted is He), because He deserves it. It was not that the deserving of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) for it was when He engaged in creation and became a Creator. This is what I understand from this statement.
The Shaykh : Good, this is opposed by the scholars of Kalam: He is Able and capable, and it is not necessary that He be so in actuality.
Al-Halabi : In potential, in potential.
The Shaykh : In potential, well done. This is an explanation of this word that the scholars of Tawhid say; but where is the point of difficulty? That is, this statement related to the Essence of Allah and His attribute, the attribute of creation and speech, and so on, has no difficulty at all. That is, this statement itself, now your companion does not contradict you in it, is that correct or not?
Wafiq: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because the research is about one of the eternal attributes of Allah that has no beginning by the consensus of the Muslims. All right, this is not a place of disagreement. Why do we say that this is not a place of disagreement?
Wafiq: But he contradicts us if we say that the intention of Ibn Taymiyyah by specific antiquity is the relation of creation to will and desire. If we say this statement, he says this is not the intention of Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : My brother, now we have disbelieved in the word "specific antiquity." Did we disbelieve in something?
Wafiq: No.
The Shaykh : We want to see what is the basis, in our language and his language, what is the basis against Ibn Taymiyyah? There is a difficulty in this presentation, in this statement.
Wafiq: There is no difficulty.
The Shaykh : All right, what is his difficulty then? In our language and in our mutual understanding.
Wafiq: He says that Ibn Taymiyyah establishes something ancient with Allah, the matter or the type that He created...
The Shaykh : Something ancient with Allah, does it have a beginning? Is it preceded by non-existence or not?
Wafiq: No, he does not say that, he says eternal.
The Shaykh : All right, Ibn Taymiyyah says this.
Al-Halabi : Preceded by non-existence.
The Shaykh : Ibn Taymiyyah says this, and therefore he has no basis against Ibn Taymiyyah.
Al-Halabi : It is the issue of conceiving that every created thing is preceded by a created thing before it, to what has no beginning. This is his conception, the hardest thing, and it is not conceivable.
The Shaykh : Why am I telling you this is philosophy?
Al-Halabi : Yes, this is the only one that is not conceivable.
Wafiq: As I said, O our Shaykh: He brought what the minds are bewildered by.
The Shaykh : This is it, so what do we want, my brother? Our job now is to exonerate Ibn Taymiyyah from the takfir of these people. By what? By the truth, not by falsehood, and not by fanaticism for him, because we are not Taymiyyis. What is the truth? It is his statement in more than one book, and it also emerges from here: that there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence; but Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is not so.
Wafiq: Because He is the Creator.
The Shaykh : So he has no basis against the words of Ibn Taymiyyah except what is not understood from his words or not reasoned, as we said, and it is the philosophy that, meaning, has occupied the whole world, Ibn Taymiyyah from his time to today, between those who declare him a disbeliever and those who say I wish he had not said this word; do you see? Now here, what does he say about the Creator by will and what?
Wafiq: Yes: "It necessitates the permanence of His being a Speaker and an Actor by His will and power."
The Shaykh : So he speaks whenever He wills, correct?
Al-Halabi : Of course.
Wafiq: Yes, however He wills.
The Shaykh : No, that is not our research now, however He wills;
Al-Halabi : It is not by the manner, but by the time.
The Shaykh : Because it is not by the manner, but by the time, so he speaks whenever He wills and creates whenever He wills. Ibn Taymiyyah does not digest this statement? This is a problem. Ibn Taymiyyah never digests that it be said there is a first created thing, because as soon as you say first created thing, you negate Allah, you negate the attribute of creation from the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The questioner : That is, the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah is that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) was negated of the attribute of creation until He created?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : Shaykh al-Islam denies this.
Al-Halabi : He denies it with a very great denial.
The Shaykh : He denies it, I know.
The questioner : Therefore he establishes the opposite.
The Shaykh: No, allow me, he denies it because he says by its necessary implication, meaning he says: there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and so on to what has no beginning. Why? Because He has always been a Creator, meaning he conceives that He has always been a Creator, that always, every moment, every moment, He is not a Creator, just as he conceives that He has always been a Speaker, that He is a Speaker every moment, while we understand He speaks whenever He wills, and likewise He creates whenever He wills.
Al-Halabi : O our Shaykh, if we wanted to be precise in the research to another point.
The Shaykh: Go ahead, let us see.
Another questioner : If you please, the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) is transmitted from the Mutakallimun their saying: that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) was negated of creation until He created. So he opposed them with this opposite, the philosophers who said by the antiquity of the world, so they said Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) was not negated, it is impossible that He be negated then create, so they said by the antiquity of creation, and it is the real antiquity by time. He transmits the opinion of the Mutakallimun and the opinion of the philosophers of the materialists, so he transmits from the Mutakallimun and refutes them, that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) was negated of creation until He created. This is denied by Ibn Taymiyyah completely; in the explanation of the hadith of the Descent and in the explanation of the hadith of 'Umar ibn al-Husayn.
The Shaykh : No, what is the opposite? He denies this, so what does he approve?
The questioner : He says that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is a Creator not because He created, but rather He is a Creator by being described with the attribute of the Creator.
The Shaykh : Correct...
Al-Halabi : And by His power over creation.
The questioner : And by His power over creation.
The Shaykh : That is, He did not acquire the attribute of creation when He created.
The questioner : He is so by being described with it eternally, and His power over it, and His deserving of it.
The Shaykh : This is what we mentioned earlier regarding the scholars of *kalam*: that He is the Creator by power. What does that mean? It means by strength, meaning that He was a Creator before He created. But Ibn Taymiyyah does not suffice with this amount; rather, he adds to it that there is no created thing except that before it was a created thing, extending back to what has no beginning. So his refutation of the philosophers comes from this detail, and not merely from his saying that Allah was a Creator by power and then created. The word "then created" is problematic for him, as the "then" implies temporal delay.
This is problematic for him. I mean, let us be honest now: when you come to speak about Ibn Taymiyyah's words, what does he say?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, does what we quoted earlier, "there is no created thing except that before it was a created thing, there is no created thing except that before it was a created thing, and every created thing is preceded by non-existence," does this not mean that?
The questioner : It is this statement...
The Shaykh : Excuse me, S-L-M, does this mean that or not?
The questioner : In my opinion, it does not mean that.
The Shaykh : Then what does it mean?
The questioner : This statement was brought by the Shaykh al-Islam from the perspective of...
The Shaykh : Excuse me, the best speech is what is little and effective. It does not mean this. What does it mean?
The questioner : That this is rationally permissible in his view.
The Shaykh : What is rationally permissible? Are we talking about what is rationally permissible or about what is actually the reality?
Wafi: About its benefits.
The Shaykh : Is he talking about the reality or about what is rationally permissible?
The questioner : In his speech, he says that it is rationally permissible and not a reality.
The Shaykh : So his saying, "there is no created thing except that before it was a created thing," is this rationally permissible but not a reality?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : No, you are wrong. This is Ibn Taymiyyah's belief, otherwise what is the difference between him and the others?
Al-Halabi : Here is a word from the Shaykh al-Islam's speech that supports our brother Salim's statement. He says: "And the third is the statement of the one who says that it is possible for existence..."
The Shaykh : Wait a moment, let us listen to the patient brother here?
Al-Halabi : That he holds to the eternalness of the type, meaning he interprets this statement...
The Shaykh : What is understood from the eternalness of the type?
Al-Halabi : That this universe is preceded by a universe before it, and this universe is preceded by a universe before it, to an end of universes that has no limit.
The Shaykh : So what is the objection he has against Ibn Taymiyyah?
Al-Halabi : That this statement leads to an eternal thing alongside Allah.
The Shaykh : Is not this statement that he is quoting the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah?
Al-Halabi : That...?
The Shaykh : There is no created thing except that before it is a created thing.
Al-Halabi : It is, of course, the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : So what is this man's argument against Ibn Taymiyyah? Does Ibn Taymiyyah say that there is an eternal created thing alongside Allah?
Al-Halabi : No, he does not say this, but he combined two statements and reached this conclusion from which he derived this statement.
The Shaykh : So is the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah the subject of the derivation?
Al-Halabi : Of course.
The Shaykh : How, of course?
Al-Halabi : Of course, for him, not for us. All his statements are derivations by our Shaykh; he did not bring explicit texts.
Wafi: He means that the Shaykh of Ibn Taymiyyah says that the type of created things is eternal, which is what he says, but he was not able to bring an explicit text for this statement; rather, there are texts from which this statement may be understood.
The Shaykh : If we combine the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah, it turns out that he does not say the type is eternal; but he says that there is no first created thing; but he says: There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence. So have you seen this from his statements?
Wafi: A lot.
The Shaykh : So what is this opponent's position toward this statement?
The questioner : Evasion...
The Shaykh : So what is the benefit of the discussion? Since the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah is explicit that there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence; but the truth is that Ibn Taymiyyah entered a subject that is almost like philosophy; the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah are divided into two parts, as I understand:
A part that follows the Shari'ah within the limits of our understanding; a part that follows philosophy that is not comprehensible. The one that follows the Shari'ah is that there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and any created thing is preceded by non-existence; so at that time, the matter differs from the Divine Essence in every way. So if this opponent of yours insists on what? If he wants to insist on the eternalness of the type of Ibn Taymiyyah, explain what is meant by the eternalness of the type: that there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and before it a created thing, and so on to what has no beginning. This is a statement that is not understood, of course; logically it is not understood; but this does not make him a disbeliever because he explicitly states that there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence; so from here, the created differs from the Creator in Ibn Taymiyyah's view completely, and this is a very self-evident matter regarding the creed of Ibn Taymiyyah; so the issue does not need all this argumentation if the man wants to be fair; but if he wants to argue with falsehood, then this has no end; Ibn Taymiyyah says there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence, but he tells you it has no beginning, there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing.
The questioner : How do we combine this statement, our Shaykh, with his statement that the first of the created things is the Throne?
The Shaykh : From whom?
The questioner : The Shaykh of Islam.
The Shaykh : No, Ibn Taymiyyah does not say the first created thing is the Throne; he is telling a story, and this is how we refute his statement with this statement; Ibn Taymiyyah narrates the disagreement of the scholars regarding the first created thing, some of them say the Throne, and some of them say the Pen; but he does not say there is a first created thing, and from here came his problem.
Wafi: But my teacher, his preference, our Shaykh, is an explicit preference; he says: And this is what the majority of the Salaf are upon.
The Shaykh : Correct; but when he comes to tell you: There is no created thing except that it is preceded by a created thing.
Al-Halabi : We are here, the only problem now that we have.
The Shaykh : No, my brother, this is not a problem; you hold onto his word: "There is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence." I commented on, I think...; the important thing is, I commented and said this contradicts the statement that there is no first created thing.
Al-Halabi : They used this statement as evidence against us on the day of the session, they said evenThe Shaykh : They understood our understanding in the case of...
The questioner : They said evenThe Shaykh : Nasser in al-Silsilah al-Sahihah understood differently from your understanding, Shaykh Ali, in this research.
The Shaykh : What is your understanding that they are accusing you of?
Al-Halabi : We did not raise the issue that there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing at that time; we raised the issue of the eternalness of the type.
The Shaykh : We are not concerned with what happened between you and him; we are concerned with seeing where the disagreement is between you and this man.
Wafi: Our Shaykh, I want to say something; you know your precision in research.
The Shaykh: Go ahead.
Wafi: Therefore, I arranged the research in this order... First: we wanted to read some texts, but praise be to Allah, they are known to you; the second thing: what is the meaning of the eternalness of the type in the understanding ofThe Shaykh : Nasser al-Din al-Albani (may Allah preserve him).
The Shaykh : laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him), my brother, did you find this expression in the Qur'an?
Wafi: No.
The Shaykh : So why are you putting yourselves in a dilemma, and then trying to get out of it? The eternalness of the type is a term of Ibn Taymiyyah, do you understand how? Meaning, what we mentioned earlier: "There is no created thing except that before it is a created thing" and so on to what has no beginning.
Wafi: Okay, we now have an understanding of the issue of the eternalness of the type.
The Shaykh : Please, go ahead.
Wafi: We have an observation regarding the texts of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him); in more than one place, whether in al-Dar' or al-Minhaj or al-Fatawa, we found that he — the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) — links his statement regarding the type to the will and the desire, so we understood that the intention of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) by the eternalness of the type is linking the action to the will and power of Allah (Exalted and Majestic is He), not that there is, meaning, something created alongside Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) that is ancient with the ancientness of Allah; rather, the eternalness of the type means that our Lord (Exalted and Majestic is He) is characterized by the eternal, ancient will and power.
The Shaykh : Allow me, within the limits of this understanding that you understood, is there a disagreement between Ibn Taymiyyah and others?
Wafi: A disagreement between Ibn Taymiyyah and others? I do not think so.
The Shaykh : So?
Wafi: Meaning, is this interpretation from us, our understanding of the eternalness of the type with the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, that in terms of the connection of creation to the will and desire; so when he uses this expression, he means by it the ancient will and desire with the ancientness of Allah, if the expression is correct.
Al-Halabi : Because they are among His attributes, if the expression is correct.
The Shaykh : No, this returned you to the attribute of Allah, while the research is in the effect of the attribute of Allah; Allah is characterized by the attribute of the Creator; and the research is in the effect of the attribute of Allah, which is creation and the created.
Wafi: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, and this statement that you are saying, one of our arguments against Ibn Taymiyyah is that Allah creates whenever He wills, and he says that if we say the first created thing, it means — I am telling you philosophical words that it was not fitting for Ibn Taymiyyah to delve into this depth — if we say this is the first created thing, it means we have defined the firstness of Allah (Mighty and Majestic); because when you say the first created thing, how many millions of millions of uncountable and unnumberable years have passed for Allah (Mighty and Majestic) while He is not actually characterized by the attribute of creation. And this is what you understand?
Wafi: This is what the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah rejects in our understanding.
The Shaykh : Allow me, do you want to learn patience — he laughsThe Shaykh : (may Allah have mercy on him) — how, meaning, what is understood from the statement of Ibn Taymiyyah? Wafi: Meaning, please, let me read to you this misleading expression...
The Shaykh : Please, but I understood from what I am saying that you say this is what we understood from Ibn Taymiyyah; Ibn Taymiyyah says — this remains in my mind from long ago —: that there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and so on to what has no beginning; and that if we say here the beginning, it means the eternalness of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is defined.
Wafi: Yes.
The Shaykh : How do you say?
Wafi: This is what the Shaykh of Islam says.
The Shaykh : All right, so how do you interpret his words?
Wafiq: I interpret his words with this statement: that when Ibn Taymiyyah intends the meaning of the beginning of the First, it is the attributes of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), namely will and desire.
Al-Halabi : From which the created things emanate.
The Shaykh : No, no, my brother, while you are searching in the created, you find yourself returning to the attribute of the Creator.
Al-Halabi : He has a connection, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, between these two issues in many places, O our Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No, there is no connection, so does that mean there was no time, even for moments, when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) did not create anything?
Al-Halabi : No, O our Shaykh, this statement, let us suppose it is correct, and indeed it is correct, but Shaykh al-Islam holds that the actor from whom the action issues does not necessitate that the action be equal to the actor; rather, every action is later than the actor. This refutes the claim that it will come with its effect.
Wafiq: O Shaykh Ali, if you allow me, I will read the phrase onThe Shaykh : , this one we are approximately discussing, he says in the explanation of the hadith of 'Umar: "... So the effect means the absence of a beginning; the Eternal is not a limited thing, so our saying 'He has always been Able' is like saying 'He is always Able,' and His being Able is a permanent attribute with no beginning, so likewise if it is said..."
The Shaykh : Here he is speaking about the attribute subsisting in His Essence.
Wafiq: In the Essence of Allah, yes: "So likewise if it is said: 'He has always been a Speaker when He wills, and He has always been doing what He wills,' this necessitates the permanence of His being a Speaker and an Actor by His will and power. And if the one who thinks thinks that this necessitates the existence of something ancient with Him, that is a corruption of his conception. For if He is the Creator of all things, and everything other than Him is a created thing preceded by non-existence, then there is nothing ancient with Him in His antiquity. And if it is said: 'He has always been creating,' it means He has always been creating a created thing after a created thing, just as He will not cease in eternity from creating a created thing after a created thing. We deny what we deny of occurrences and movements, one thing after another, and there is in that only His description with the permanence of action, not that there is with Him an acted-upon thing from the acted-upon things specifically."
The Shaykh : All right, how is this, what do you understand from this?
Wafiq: We understand from this, O our Shaykh, that the original attribute related to Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), will and desire, and also the attribute of creation and the attribute of the Creator, the Maker, and so on, is an eternal attribute with Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) that He deserves...
The Shaykh : There is no disagreement, and this is not the subject of our research.
Wafiq: Yes, perhaps if I complete it, the place will come. He deserves it, (Glorified and Exalted is He), because He deserves it. It was not that the deserving of Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) for it was when He engaged in creation and became a Creator. This is what I understand from this statement.
The Shaykh : Good, this is opposed by the scholars of Kalam: He is Able and capable, and it is not necessary that He be so in actuality.
Al-Halabi : In potential, in potential.
The Shaykh : In potential, well done. This is an explanation of this word that the scholars of Tawhid say; but where is the point of difficulty? That is, this statement related to the Essence of Allah and His attribute, the attribute of creation and speech, and so on, has no difficulty at all. That is, this statement itself, now your companion does not contradict you in it, is that correct or not?
Wafiq: Yes.
The Shaykh : Because the research is about one of the eternal attributes of Allah that has no beginning by the consensus of the Muslims. All right, this is not a place of disagreement. Why do we say that this is not a place of disagreement?
Wafiq: But he contradicts us if we say that the intention of Ibn Taymiyyah by specific antiquity is the relation of creation to will and desire. If we say this statement, he says this is not the intention of Ibn Taymiyyah.
The Shaykh : My brother, now we have disbelieved in the word "specific antiquity." Did we disbelieve in something?
Wafiq: No.
The Shaykh : We want to see what is the basis, in our language and his language, what is the basis against Ibn Taymiyyah? There is a difficulty in this presentation, in this statement.
Wafiq: There is no difficulty.
The Shaykh : All right, what is his difficulty then? In our language and in our mutual understanding.
Wafiq: He says that Ibn Taymiyyah establishes something ancient with Allah, the matter or the type that He created...
The Shaykh : Something ancient with Allah, does it have a beginning? Is it preceded by non-existence or not?
Wafiq: No, he does not say that, he says eternal.
The Shaykh : All right, Ibn Taymiyyah says this.
Al-Halabi : Preceded by non-existence.
The Shaykh : Ibn Taymiyyah says this, and therefore he has no basis against Ibn Taymiyyah.
Al-Halabi : It is the issue of conceiving that every created thing is preceded by a created thing before it, to what has no beginning. This is his conception, the hardest thing, and it is not conceivable.
The Shaykh : Why am I telling you this is philosophy?
Al-Halabi : Yes, this is the only one that is not conceivable.
Wafiq: As I said, O our Shaykh: He brought what the minds are bewildered by.
The Shaykh : This is it, so what do we want, my brother? Our job now is to exonerate Ibn Taymiyyah from the takfir of these people. By what? By the truth, not by falsehood, and not by fanaticism for him, because we are not Taymiyyis. What is the truth? It is his statement in more than one book, and it also emerges from here: that there is no created thing except that it is preceded by non-existence; but Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is not so.
Wafiq: Because He is the Creator.
The Shaykh : So he has no basis against the words of Ibn Taymiyyah except what is not understood from his words or not reasoned, as we said, and it is the philosophy that, meaning, has occupied the whole world, Ibn Taymiyyah from his time to today, between those who declare him a disbeliever and those who say I wish he had not said this word; do you see? Now here, what does he say about the Creator by will and what?
Wafiq: Yes: "It necessitates the permanence of His being a Speaker and an Actor by His will and power."
The Shaykh : So he speaks whenever He wills, correct?
Al-Halabi : Of course.
Wafiq: Yes, however He wills.
The Shaykh : No, that is not our research now, however He wills;
Al-Halabi : It is not by the manner, but by the time.
The Shaykh : Because it is not by the manner, but by the time, so he speaks whenever He wills and creates whenever He wills. Ibn Taymiyyah does not digest this statement? This is a problem. Ibn Taymiyyah never digests that it be said there is a first created thing, because as soon as you say first created thing, you negate Allah, you negate the attribute of creation from the attributes of Allah (Mighty and Majestic).
The questioner : That is, the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah is that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) was negated of the attribute of creation until He created?
The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.
The questioner : Shaykh al-Islam denies this.
Al-Halabi : He denies it with a very great denial.
The Shaykh : He denies it, I know.
The questioner : Therefore he establishes the opposite.
The Shaykh: No, allow me, he denies it because he says by its necessary implication, meaning he says: there is no created thing except that before it is a created thing, and so on to what has no beginning. Why? Because He has always been a Creator, meaning he conceives that He has always been a Creator, that always, every moment, every moment, He is not a Creator, just as he conceives that He has always been a Speaker, that He is a Speaker every moment, while we understand He speaks whenever He wills, and likewise He creates whenever He wills.
Al-Halabi : O our Shaykh, if we wanted to be precise in the research to another point.
The Shaykh: Go ahead, let us see.
Another questioner : If you please, the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) is transmitted from the Mutakallimun their saying: that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) was negated of creation until He created. So he opposed them with this opposite, the philosophers who said by the antiquity of the world, so they said Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) was not negated, it is impossible that He be negated then create, so they said by the antiquity of creation, and it is the real antiquity by time. He transmits the opinion of the Mutakallimun and the opinion of the philosophers of the materialists, so he transmits from the Mutakallimun and refutes them, that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) was negated of creation until He created. This is denied by Ibn Taymiyyah completely; in the explanation of the hadith of the Descent and in the explanation of the hadith of 'Umar ibn al-Husayn.
The Shaykh : No, what is the opposite? He denies this, so what does he approve?
The questioner : He says that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) is a Creator not because He created, but rather He is a Creator by being described with the attribute of the Creator.
The Shaykh : Correct...
Al-Halabi : And by His power over creation.
The questioner : And by His power over creation.
The Shaykh : That is, He did not acquire the attribute of creation when He created.
The questioner : He is so by being described with it eternally, and His power over it, and His deserving of it.
The Shaykh : This is what we mentioned earlier regarding the scholars of *kalam*: that He is the Creator by power. What does that mean? It means by strength, meaning that He was a Creator before He created. But Ibn Taymiyyah does not suffice with this amount; rather, he adds to it that there is no created thing except that before it was a created thing, extending back to what has no beginning. So his refutation of the philosophers comes from this detail, and not merely from his saying that Allah was a Creator by power and then created. The word "then created" is problematic for him, as the "then" implies temporal delay.
This is problematic for him. I mean, let us be honest now: when you come to speak about Ibn Taymiyyah's words, what does he say?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : Okay, does what we quoted earlier, "there is no created thing except that before it was a created thing, there is no created thing except that before it was a created thing, and every created thing is preceded by non-existence," does this not mean that?
The questioner : It is this statement...
The Shaykh : Excuse me, S-L-M, does this mean that or not?
The questioner : In my opinion, it does not mean that.
The Shaykh : Then what does it mean?
The questioner : This statement was brought by the Shaykh al-Islam from the perspective of...
The Shaykh : Excuse me, the best speech is what is little and effective. It does not mean this. What does it mean?
The questioner : That this is rationally permissible in his view.
The Shaykh : What is rationally permissible? Are we talking about what is rationally permissible or about what is actually the reality?
Wafi: About its benefits.
The Shaykh : Is he talking about the reality or about what is rationally permissible?
The questioner : In his speech, he says that it is rationally permissible and not a reality.
The Shaykh : So his saying, "there is no created thing except that before it was a created thing," is this rationally permissible but not a reality?
The questioner: Yes.
The Shaykh : No, you are wrong. This is Ibn Taymiyyah's belief, otherwise what is the difference between him and the others?
Al-Halabi : Here is a word from the Shaykh al-Islam's speech that supports our brother Salim's statement. He says: "And the third is the statement of the one who says that it is possible for existence..."
The Shaykh : Wait a moment, let us listen to the patient brother here?
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.